Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 50%

Key Votes:

This bill (H.R. 6784) would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a rule removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife, thus removing federal protections for the species in the 48 contiguous United States. It would also direct the Interior Department to reissue a 2011 rule delisting gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and would exempt both rules, and another rule delisting the species in Wyoming, from judicial review.

The House passed H.R. 6784 on November 16, 2018 by a vote of 196 to 180 (Roll Call 420). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because decisions regarding human interaction with various animal species, if handled by government at all, should be handled at the state and local levels. The U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to declare animals endangered and thus off-limits to hunt or otherwise manage. The growing gray wolf population has been a menace to farmers and ranchers in many states, and farmers are not allowed to protect their own property owing to federal regulations. Working to overturn such regulations is a good thing.

This bill (H.R. 6760) would make permanent tax cuts for individuals in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that were set to expire at the end of 2025, including lowered tax rates, increased standard deductions (from $13,000 to $24,000 for joint filers), and an increased child tax credit (from $1,000 to $2,000).

The House passed H.R. 6760 on September 28, 2018 by a vote of 220 to 191 (Roll Call 414). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because tax cuts keep money in the hands of those who earned it and can spur economic growth. Unfortunately, however, neither the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act nor this new legislation addresses runaway federal spending, which needs to be reined in via other legislation.

This bill (H.R. 6), as amended by the House, would expand Medicare and Medicaid to cover medication-assisted treatment for substance abuse and would place new requirements on states regarding Medicaid drug review and utilization requirements. It would appropriate $15 million annually, from fiscal 2019 through fiscal 2023, to support the establishment or operation of public-health laboratories to detect synthetic opioids. The House amendment to the Senate-amended bill would allow Medicaid patients with opioid- or cocaineabuse problems to stay for up to 30 days per year in certain treatment facilities with more than 16 beds.

The House agreed to an amendment to the Senate-amended version of H.R. 6 on September 28, 2018 by a vote of 393 to 8 (Roll Call 415). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Medicare and Medicaid are both unconstitutional programs. The U.S. Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to pay people’s medical expenses, no matter how poor or disabled they are. Such assistance should be handled by states, charity, or the free market. Any expansion of Medicare or Medicaid, which is what this bill authorizes, should be voted against.

This bill (H.R. 6157) would provide $855.1 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2019, including $674.4 billion for the Defense Department (including $67.9 billion in overseas contingency operations, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), $ 90.3 billion for the Health and Human Services Department, $71.4 billion for the Education Department, $12.1 billion for the Labor Department, and continuing appropriations for all of the remaining federal government departments not explicitly funded by this bill until December 7, 2018.

The House adopted the final version of the bill (the conference report) on September 26, 2018 by a vote of 361 to 61 (Roll Call 405). We have assigned pluses to the nays because social-welfare spending falls outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, and lumping multiple appropriations bills into one mega bill reduces lawmakers’ accountability to their constituents. Moreover, even though defense spending is constitutional, the “defense” budget is bloated with funding for overseas military operations that have not contributed to the defense of our own country.

This bill (H.R. 302) would reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration though fiscal year 2023, with annual authorizations for federal aviation programs increasing from $10.2 billion in fiscal 2018 to $11.6 billion in fiscal 2023. It also eases restrictions on FAA regulation of drones, authorizes the federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and includes $1.7 billion for Hurricane Florence disaster relief.

The House passed the bill on September 26, 2018 by a vote of 398 to 23 (Roll Call 407). We have assigned pluses to the nays because of the bill’s unconstitutional federal overreach in both aviation and disaster relief. One example of this overreach is the TSA, which is known for groping and violating air travelers in the name of providing security. Instead of relying on an inefficient federal bureaucracy, security should be provided by the airlines, which have a vested interest in keeping their customers safe. Another area the feds should stay out of is the regulation of private-sector drones, which instead should be managed by local ordinances or (at most) state laws. And the market, not the feds, should determine such issues as the dimensions of seats on passenger airliners. Regarding disaster relief, this should be handled by private charitable efforts, not the federal government.

This bill (S. 1182) would extend the authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program through November 30, 2018.

The House passed S. 1182 on July 25, 2018 by a vote of 366 to 52 (Roll Call 373). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to get into the insurance business. Having the federal government as an insurer essentially subsidizes risky behavior, such as building in flood-, fire-, and earthquake-prone areas, and forces the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Insurance policies for natural disasters should be offered by private insurers, with the market setting the rates for such coverage.

This bill (H.R. 184) would fully repeal, after December 31, 2019, the 2.3-percent excise tax on domestic sales of medical devices. The “medical device tax” was put in place as part of the Affordable Care Act to help cover some of the program’s costs.

The House passed H.R. 184 on July 24, 2018 by a vote of 283 to 132 (Roll Call 372). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because, while implementing an excise tax in itself is not an unconstitutional action of the federal government, this particular excise tax was put in place to help pay for an unconstitutional program — the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare. Repealing part of the funding for such an unconstitutional federal healthcare program is a good thing and should be supported.

This measure (House Concurrent Resolution 119) would express the sense of Congress “that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.” During debate on the floor of the House, Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.) discussed how a carbon tax would raise and increase costs for families. He pointed out: “There would be an increase by an estimated $1,900 per family on the cost of things that they buy all across this country.”

The House adopted H. Con. Res. 119 on July 19, 2018 by a vote of 229 to 180 (Roll Call 363). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Congress has no constitutional authority to limit the use of certain sources of energy, such as carbonbased fuels, by selectively imposing taxes on them.

This amendment to H.R. 6147, introduced by Representative Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), would prohibit appropriated funds of the Fiscal 2019 Interior Environment and Financial Services Appropriations Package from being used to enforce the EPA’s “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emissions Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources” rule, also known as the “methane rule.” According to the Congressional Record for July 18, 2018, Representative Mullin said the following: “This amendment would prohibit funds from enforcing the Obama administration EPA methane rule. This rule is currently facing litigation uncertainty, and Congress must act to block this job-killing regulation estimated to cost our economy $530 million annually. While oil and gas production has increased more than 25 percent since 2005, related methane emissions have actually decreased almost 40 percent during the same time period.”

The House passed this amendment to H.R. 6147 on July 18, 2018 by a vote of 215 to 194 (Roll Call 346). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate the environment in general, let alone regulate methane emissions that accompany oil and natural gas production, processing, and distribution.

The House passed H.R. 3 on June 7, 2018 by a vote of 210 to 206 (Roll Call 243). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not only because the spending falls outside the scope of constitutionally authorized federal powers, but also because the federal government needs to start reining in ballooning federal spending (and debt) somewhere in order to avert fiscal disaster. The cuts in this bill comprise only a fraction of one percent of total federal spending, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, most of the funding targeted by the bill would not be spent anyway. Yet modest cuts are better than none at all.

This bill (H.R. 3249) would establish a Project Safe Neighbor-hoods Block Grant Program within the Of-fice of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice to foster and improve existing partnerships between local, state, and fed-eral law-enforcement agencies to create safer neighborhoods through sustained reductions in violent crimes. It would authorize $50 million a year in each of the fiscal years from 2019 through 2021.

The House concurred with the Senate version of H.R. 3249 on June 6, 2018 by a vote of 394 to 13 (Roll Call 239). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government is not autho-rized by the Constitution to partner with, train, or subsidize state or local law-enforcement agencies. Too, our contin-ued existence as a free people under the Constitution depends on the continued independence of our local police from federal and state control.

This bill (S. 204) would allow patients with life-threatening diseases or conditions who are not participating in clinical trials to seek access to experimental and investigational drugs directly from a drug manufacturer, without approval by the Food and Drug Administration. It would require that in order for the patient to be eligible, the patient must first try all approved treatment options and be unable to participate in a clinical trial. Only drugs that have completed phase 1 clinical trials, that have not been approved or licensed for any use, and that are currently under an active FDA application or are undergoing clinical trials would be eligible for use under the bill’s provisions.

The House passed S. 204 on May 22, 2018 by a vote of 250 to 169 (Roll Call 214). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government, under the Constitution, has not been given authority over what medical procedures U.S. citizens choose to engage in. If a person wants to try an “unapproved” treatment, he should be able to do so with no interference from the government. In fact, since the Constitution gives the federal government no authority whatsoever over any aspect of healthcare, the FDA should not even exist. Any law that lessens government overreach into the personal medical decisions of citizens is a step in the right direction.

During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to prohibit federal interference in the interstate transportation of unpasteurized milk and milk products between states that allow for the distribution of such products for direct human consumption.

The House rejected Massie’s amendment on May 18, 2018 by a vote of 79 to 331 (Roll Call 201). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over what foods a person chooses to consume. In other words, it is illegal for the federal government to make raw milk illegal. While the federal government does have authority to “regulate Commerce … among the several States,” there is no reason for federal interference in a scenario such as this, where a product is legally sold in each of the states in question. Massie’s amendment would have limited federal overreach and should have been supported.

During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Jim Banks (RInd.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 “Waters of the United States” rule. On the floor of the House, Banks called this rule “the poster child of government overreach during the Obama administration,” noting that it gives “unelected bureaucrats at the EPA the power to broadly interpret what is a navigable waterway” under the Clean Water Act — so broadly that “even a puddle in a farm’s drainage ditch could be subjected to Federal regulation.”

The House adopted Banks’ amendment on May 18, 2018 by a vote of 238 to 173 (Roll Call 203). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because both federal water regulations and the EPA are unconstitutional, and if the rule were allowed to stand, activities such as farming and real estate development would be greatly hampered, since farmers and developers would be subject to increased unconstitutional permit requirements and fines concerning their treatment of almost any body of water, no matter how small.

During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) introduced an amendment that would have phased out agricultural crop subsidies by fiscal year 2030.

The House rejected McClintock’s amendment on May 17, 2018 by a vote of 34 to 380 (Roll Call 194). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because no warrant for the appropriation of crop subsidies is found in the Constitution, and subsidies disrupt the free market economy.

This bill (H.R. 1625) would provide $1.3 trillion in discretionary appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018 for federal government operations and services. This represents an overall increase in discretionary spending of 12 percent over the 2017 level. The big winner was the Department of Defense, with an increase of 10 percent over last year’s appropriations. Democrat negotiators on this bill successfully fought off many Republican riders, such as a rider that would have permitted the Trump administration to withdraw the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Pro-life Republicans were saddened to learn that the omnibus bill continues the more than $500 million in taxpayer dollars Planned Parenthood receives each year.

The House passed the omnibus spending bill on March 22, 2018 by a vote of 256 to 167 (Roll Call 127). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this omnibus bill, members of Congress are failing to address their fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding annual federal deficits measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, as well as minimizing their accountability to the voters by combining all discretionary federal spending for fiscal 2018 into one gigantic “take it or leave it” bill.

The STOP School Violence Act of 2018 (H.R. 4909) would authorize $75 million a year through fiscal year 2028 for the Justice Department’s Secure Our Schools grant program. SOS is a grant program of the Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which has been instrumental in laying the foundations for nationalizing local police by providing federal “assistance” in the form of funds, equipment, training, and development of guidelines to local law-enforcement agencies.

In a podcast interview with Conservative Review, Representative Thomas Massie (RKy.) said the “STOP School Violence Act was bad enough for nationalizing defense of our schools,” but he further revealed, “There is money in that bill that is going to go to gun control groups. It literally says in there you can give it to the 501-C3s, and then it also says in there it can’t go to train anybody on gun safety. It’s got to go for all the liberal sort of agendas.”

The House passed H.R. 4909 on March 14, 2018 by a vote of 407 to 10 (Roll Call 106). We have assigned pluses to the nays because school safety is not a proper function of the federal government, and no action the federal government has ever taken would actually make schools safe. School safety should be addressed at the local level. Furthermore, the nationalizing of local police and school security, as well as any other gun-control measures contained in the bill, are all strictly unconstitutional.

The World Bank Accountability Act (H.R. 3326) would authorize $3.29 billion in U.S. contributions to the World Bank’s International Development Association, which discharges concessional loans known as “credits” and economic grants to the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped countries.

The House passed H.R. 3326 on January 17, 2018 by a vote of 237 to 184 (Roll Call 24). We have assigned pluses to the nays because authorizing such funds to the WTO’s IDA is foreign aid, which is a form of international welfare and completely unconstitutional, and most World Bank “aid” further enriches plutocrats in Third World countries, at the expense of the poor.

During consideration of the bill (S. 139) reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) introduced an amendment to end NSA collection of communications data that is neither to nor from an approved foreign target, but rather communications “about” a foreign target entirely between American citizens. It would prohibit the FBI and intelligence agencies from searching the NSA database for information on U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant, except in certain circumstances. The amendment would also end “reverse targeting,” in which an American citizen communicating with a foreign target is also subject to surveillance.

The House rejected Amash’s amendment on January 11, 2018 by a vote of 183 to 233 (Roll Call 14). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because this amendment is an attempt to limit NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is unconstitutional, and NSA surveillance certainly falls under this category. Amash’s amendment would require the FBI to obtain a warrant, rather than merely FISA Court approval, in order to access the NSA’s database.

This bill (S. 139) would reauthorize for six years, through 2023, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The bill would require the development of procedures for searching the NSA database that would protect the Fourth Amendment-guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens, while allowing the FBI to access information with an order from the secret FISA Court, in certain cases.

The House passed S. 139 on January 11, 2018 by a vote of 256 to 164 (Roll Call 16). We have assigned pluses to the nays because FISA, while supposedly put in place to gather intelligence on foreign targets, has been used to spy on U.S. citizens. While the bill does provide provisions to, ostensibly, protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules. The FISA Court gives a green light to just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and FISA-approved NSA warrantless surveillance of American citizens has become common knowledge.

This bill, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), would slash the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, cut individual income-tax rates through 2025, and effectively eliminate the tax penalty on Americans who do not purchase health insurance by reducing the penalty amount to zero. The latter was a cornerstone of the 2010 ObamaCare legislation.

The House agreed to the final version of H.R. 1 on December 20, 2017 by a vote of 224 to 201 (Roll Call 699), after which the bill was sent to President Trump for his signature. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the tax cuts in this bill will keep more money in the hands of American businesses and consumers, where it can be invested into the economy, thus spurring economic growth. Unfortunately, however, the bill does not address federal spending, which needs to be reined in via other legislation.

The Protecting Seniors’ Access to Medicare Act (H.R. 849) would repeal the provisions of ObamaCare providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), otherwise known as the “death panel.” In a statement applauding the passage of H.R. 849, David O. Barbe, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), said, “IPAB puts significant health care payment and policy decisions in the hands of an independent body with far too little accountability. Its cost-cutting targets would lead to short-sighted strategies that would threaten access to care for millions of Medicare patients across the country.”

The House passed H.R. 849 on November 2, 2017 by a vote of 307 to 111 (Roll Call 604). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to interfere in healthcare, let alone ration it by deciding who should and should not receive medical care.

Known as the “Pain-Capable Unborn Protection Act,” this bill (H.R. 36) bans abortion when the age of the preborn baby is 20 weeks or longer. “After 20 weeks,” the bill says, “the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example, by recoiling.”

The House passed H.R. 36 on October 3, 2017 by a vote of 237 to 189 (Roll Call 549). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because all forms of abortion constitute the murder of preborn children, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade decision, overstepped its proper authority by “legalizing” abortion in the first place.

The Increasing Opportunity and Success for Children and Parents Through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act (H.R. 2824) would authorize $400 million a year through 2022 for the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program, which was created under ObamaCare. Under ObamaCare, the MIECHV Program is intended as a wellness and prevention program for homes in poor communities and is to serve as the basis for developing and implementing a national strategy. MIECHV mandates home visits by nurses and other workers to test both the children and parents in order to make improvements in the following extensive list of areas: prenatal; maternal; newborn health; child health and development; children’s cognitive, language, social, emotional, and physical development; parenting skills; school readiness; child academic achievement; reduction in crime; reduction in domestic violence; improvements in family economic self sufficiency; and more.

The House passed H.R. 2824 on September 26, 2017 by a vote of 214 to 209 (Roll Call 537). We have assigned pluses to the nays because going into homes to check up on the physical, emotional, and economic “wellness” of families not only goes way beyond the few and defined federal powers authorized by the Constitution, but also is part of a dangerous trend of government further interjecting itself into the family.

During consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 3354), Representative Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit funds to process any application for a drilling permit that would authorize use of hydraulic fracturing or acid well stimulation treatment in the Pacific outer continental shelf.

The House rejected Carbajal’s amendment on September 8, 2017 by a vote of 177 to 230 (Roll Call 483). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government should not interfere with energy exploration. Regulation of various industries, such as energy, is not one of the federal government’s enumerated powers under the Constitution. Allowing the United States to fully utilize its energy resources would make the country more self-sufficient and create, potentially, millions of jobs.

During consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 3354), Representative Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for making contributions to various United Nations human rights agencies, including the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The House rejected Yoho’s amendment on September 7, 2017 by a vote of 199 to 212 (Roll Call 470). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because taxpayer money should not go to fund any agencies of the United Nations, especially those led by communist, Marxist, or radical Islamic regimes, which are some of the world’s biggest offenders of human rights.

This bill (H.R. 3180) would authorize classified amounts of funding through fiscal 2018 for 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities, including the Office of the National Intelligence Director, the CIA, and the National Security Agency. The bill would also require the director of national intelligence to submit to Congress multiple reports regarding Russia’s campaigns directed at foreign elections and its efforts related to cyber influence, including an assessment of Russian influence conducted during the three years prior to the bill’s enactment.

The House passed H.R. 3180 on July 28, 2017 by a vote of 380 to 35 (Roll Call 437). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the very idea of Congress authorizing classified amounts of spending is unconstitutional, as well as frightening. Furthermore, some of the agencies that this “classified” spending is funding are themselves engaged in unconstitutional activities, such as spying on and gathering data from U.S. citizens without a warrant. While assessing (dubious) Russian influence in U.S. politics is an acceptable use of federal funds, much of this bill’s spending is unconstitutional and should be rejected.

The Ozone Standards Implementation Act (H.R. 806) would delay by eight years the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), issued on October 26, 2015. The EPA’s new NAAQS for ground-level ozone levels went from 75 parts per billion (PPB) to 70 PPB.

Upon its passage in the House, the bill’s main sponsor, Congressman Pete Olson (R-Texas), said in a statement, “My bill provides needed flexibility so that states and localities can adequately achieve new, lower standards with time for compliance. Health remains the first priority in setting standards and giving our local officials the tools they need make the Clean Air Act work.” The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to set criteria pollution standards for ground level ozone.

The House passed H.R. 806 on July 18, 2017 by a vote of 229 to 199 (Roll Call 391). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because it provides temporary relief from having to immediately implement the new ozone reduction standards. Ideally, the EPA should be abolished and the Clean Air Act repealed, since both are unconstitutional infringements on state responsibilities.

This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

This bill (H.R. 10) would overhaul financial industry regulations and repeal many provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law. Additionally, the bill would change the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into an executive-branch agency funded by annual appropriations.

The House passed H.R. 10 on June 8, 2017 by a vote of 233 to 186 (Roll Call 299). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because regulation of the financial industry is not a responsibility, nor one of the enumerated powers, of the federal government. While allegedly put in place to protect consumers from irresponsible Wall Street tycoons and prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, Dodd-Frank has, in reality, negatively affected small community banks and credit unions with its heavy regulatory burden. While this bill does not represent a complete exit of the federal government from the financial industry, it is a step in the right direction.

The Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act of 2017 (H.R. 1616) would, according to the bill, authorize "within the United States Secret Service a National Computer Forensics Institute" for fiscal years 2017 through 2022. According to the bill, "The Institute shall disseminate information related to the investigation and prevention of cyber and electronic crime and related threats, and educate, train, and equip State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges." (Emphasis added.) In the name of combating cyber crime, this bill would further erode the distinction between local law enforcement and federal policing.

The House passed H.R. 1616 on May 16, 2017 by a vote of 408 to 3 (Roll Call 258). We have assigned pluses to the nays because providing federal equipment and training to state and local law-enforcement officers not only is unconstitutional, but also further federalizes the police system.

Rather than voting to repeal ObamaCare, the House voted instead to retain much of ObamaCare under the guise of "repeal and replace." The legislation (H.R. 1628), known as the American Health Care Act (AHCA), was strongly backed by President Trump and the Republican congressional leadership. Consequently most Republicans voted for the bill, but 20 voted against it. Liberty-minded Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) noted that the AHCA entailed "replacing mandates, subsidies and penalties with mandates, subsidies and penalties." Another Republican lawmaker, Representative Andy Biggs (Ariz.), while "applaud[ing] all the hard work of the House Freedom Caucus, which has made every effort ... to improve this legislation," nonetheless concluded that the "final bill ... does not meet the promises I made to my constituents." Biggs added, "I remain committed to a full repeal of ObamaCare."

The House passed H.R. 1628 on May 4, 2017 by a vote 217 to 213 (Roll Call 256). We have assigned pluses to the nays because ObamaCare should be repealed, not replaced with a Republican variant of unconstitutional government healthcare that more liberty-minded lawmakers have referred to as "ObamaCare Lite" and "ObamaCare 2.0." Admittedly, the Democrats who voted against this GOP alternatives have gotten "pluses" on this for the wrong reasons (they do not want to move away from the ObamaCare brand and in many cases want even more socialized medicine), but the Republicans who voted against the bill based on principle as opposed to partisanship are to be applauded.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act or omnibus bill (H.R. 244) would provide $1.16 trillion in discretionary appropriations through September 30, 2017 for the following federal departments and agencies: $20.9 billion for Agriculture, $56.6 billion for Commerce-Justice-Science, $593 billion for Defense, $37.8 billion for Energy-Water, $21.5 billion for Financial Services, $42.4 billion for Homeland Security, $32.2 billion for Interior-Environment, $161 billion for Labor-HHS-Education, $4.4 billion for Legislative, $53.1 billion for State-Foreign Operations, and $57.7 billion for Transportation-HUD. The measure would also authorize classified amounts of funding for various U.S. intelligence agencies.

The House agreed to the omnibus appropriations bill on May 3, 2017 by a vote of 309 to 118 (Roll Call 249). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this fiscal 2017 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress is failing to address its fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding annual federal deficits measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars that contribute directly to the dramatic growth of our nearly $20 trillion national debt.

The Securing Our Agriculture and Food Act (H.R. 1238) would expand the War on Terror to the farm and dairy front in order to "share information and quickly respond to agro-terrorism threats," according to the bill's lead sponsor, Representative David Young (R-Iowa). Congressman Young cited the 2015 avian influenza that “wiped out millions of layer hens, turkeys, and backyard flocks" in Iowa to justify the need for his bill, despite the fact that the bird flu was not caused by terrorists.

The House passed H.R. 1238 on March 22, 2017 by a vote of 406 to 6 (Roll Call 187). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill expands the "War on Terror" to include the fictitious and non-existent threat of "agro-terrorism" in the American homeland, thereby further interjecting the U.S. government into the agriculture sector, despite the absence of any constitutional power to manage this or any other sector of the American economy.

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1181) would prohibit a Veterans Affairs Department determination that an individual is mentally incompetent from being used as a basis for that individual's inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would thereby prevent the individual from purchasing a gun. Under the measure, an individual could not be considered to be mentally defective without a judicial authority's finding that the individual poses a danger to himself or herself or others.

The House passed H.R. 1181 on March 16, 2017 by a vote of 240 to 175 (Roll Call 169). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Veterans Affairs Department determination referenced above is a clear violation of the Second Amendment, which states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This legislation (House Joint Resolution 69) would disapprove of and nullify a U.S. Department of Interior rule, "Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participating and Close Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska," which was released in final form on August 5, 2016. According to the bill's sponsor, Don Young (R-Alaska): "Not only does this [rule] undermine Alaska's authority to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government. I continue to fight to protect Alaska's sovereignty and management authority and will use every tool at my discretion to strike this rule."

The House passed H. J. Res. 69 on February 16, 2017 by a vote of 225 to 193 (Roll Call 98). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because it reaffirms Alaska's sovereign power to manage its wildlife. Since the power of wildlife management was not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, it is reserved to Alaska and the other 49 states according to the 10th Amendment.

This legislation (House Joint Resolution 43) would disapprove of and nullify a Health and Human Services Department (HHS) rule that prevents states from restricting federal family planning funding to a health provider, such as denying funds to a center that provides abortions, for any basis other than its ability to provide health services. Under the current rule, HHS can withhold family planning grants to any state that restricts the participation of a health provider in the family planning services grant program.

The House passed H. J. Res. 43 on February 16, 2017 by a vote of 230 to 188 (Roll Call 99). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because this bill limits the power of an unconstitutional federal government agency. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to get involved in healthcare, much less establish a Department of Health and Human Services, so any attempt to limit the power of an unconstitutional federal agency is a step in the right direction.

This legislation (House Joint Resolution 38) would disapprove of and nullify the "Stream Protection Rule" issued by the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in 2016. This new rule would "jeopardize thousands of coal and coal-related jobs, devastate coal producing communities, and put a majority of the country's coal reserves off limits," according to the bill's lead sponsor, Representative Bill Johnson (R-Ohio).

The House passed H. J. Res. 38 on February 1, 2017 by a vote of 228 to 194 (Roll Call 73). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not only because the federal government has no constitutional authority to issue environmental regulations, but also because environmental regulations such as the "Stream Protection Rule" destroy jobs and increase energy costs. Also, states already protect streamwater.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 7) would permanently prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services or health insurance plans that include abortion coverage, as well as prohibit the District of Columbia from using its own local funds to provide or pay for abortions. Additionally, the Office of Personnel Management would be required to ensure that qualified health plans under the state exchanges were not providing abortion coverage. There is a rape, incest, and life of the mother exemption.

The House passed H.R. 7 on January 24, 2017 by a vote of 238 to 183 (Roll Call 65). We have assigned pluses to the yeas for two reasons. First, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to fund any healthcare-related programs. Such issues should be left up to the states, or, ideally, left to the free market. Second, abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, period. It is unconscionable that American taxpayers' money should be used to subsidize such a practice.

Under the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (H.R. 26), regulations would require congressional approval before any "major rule" issued by an executive branch agency could go into effect. "Major rules" would include any regulation that would have an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. The intent of the legislation is to rein in the executive branch from usurping legislative powers.

The House passed H.R. 26 on January 5, 2017 by a vote of 237 to 187 (Roll Call 23). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not simply because of the economic impact of the "major rules," but also because all legislative powers in the Constitution are vested in Congress, not the executive branch. Mandatory rules issued by the executive branch might not be called laws, but they have the same effect as laws, and what they are called does not change the reality.

This bill (H.R. 2028) perpetuates Congress’ growing habit of avoiding hard decisions about the level of federal spending by kicking the can down the road into the middle of the new fiscal year, with a continuing resolution that would provide funding for federal government operations at the fiscal year 2016 level through April 28, 2017 at an annualized “discretionary” rate of $1.07 trillion.

The House passed the final version of H.R. 2028 on December 8, 2016 by a vote of 326 to 96 (Roll Call 620). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this Continuing Appropriations bill, Congress is failing to address its fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding annual federal deficits measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars that contribute directly to the dramatic growth of our $20 trillion national debt.

This bill (S. 2943) authorizes $611.2 billion for military programs in fiscal year 2017, including $59.5 billion for foreign operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Among its many provisions, the massive bill creates a “Global Engagement Center” to counter “foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts.” Dubbed an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” by critics including THE NEW AMERICAN, this new government propaganda center is authorized to “provide financial support” to (among others) “media content providers,” including “local independent media who are best placed to refute foreign disinformation and manipulation in their own communities.”

The House passed the NDAA on December 2, 2016 by a vote of 375 to 34 (Roll Call 600). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the authorizations in this bill go way beyond providing for our national defense. Our foreign military interventions in the Middle East in particular have exacerbated terrorism and undermined U.S. security. The creation of the Orwellian “Global Engagement Center,” which was added to the NDAA without Congress being able to vote on it as a stand-alone bill, also falls outside the scope of legitimate national defense. Rather than agreeing to the version of NDAA they did, our lawmakers should have rejected it and passed instead a constitutionally sound version.

During consideration of the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill (H.R. 5538), Representative Scott Peters (D-Calif.), on behalf of Representative Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), introduced an amendment that would remove provisions in the bill that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting the greenhouse gas emissions of new and existing power plants.

The House rejected Peters’ amendment on July 12, 2016 by a vote of 182 to 244 (Roll Call 431). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government has no constitutional authority to be making environmental regulations. Such regulations on power plants will likely do nothing to actually help the environment, but will hurt consumers via higher prices and will almost certainly cause job losses in the energy sector. The EPA is an unconstitutional federal agency created by executive order, and Congress really ought to abolish it. Any action to limit the EPA’s power is a good thing.

During consideration of the Financial Services Appropriations bill (H.R. 5485), Representative Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) introduced an amendment that would strike section 613 of the bill, which prohibits Federal Employee Health Benefits Program funds from being used to pay for an abortion or abortion-related expenses. Essentially, Grayson’s amendment would allow federal employees to have abortions covered by their taxpayer-funded health insurance.

The House rejected Grayson’s amendment on July 6, 2016 by a vote of 177 to 245 (Roll Call 364). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the U.S. government should not be subsidizing abortions. While it is certainly constitutional for the federal government to provide healthcare to federal employees, abortion is not healthcare. The federal government should not be using taxpayer money to pay for the taking of innocent life.

During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to bar the use of funds in the bill from being used to conduct warrantless searches of Americans’ digital communications that have crossed the U.S. border. Massie noted in a letter to his colleagues that “the Director of National Intelligence has confirmed that the government searches vast amounts of data — including the content of emails and telephone calls — without individualized suspicion or probable cause,” and that “the director of the FBI has also confirmed that it uses this information to build criminal cases” against Americans. Massie added that the National Intelligence and FBI directors “are not above the Fourth Amendment, and this practice should end.” Massie’s amendment would also prohibit funds from being used to pressure companies to build “backdoors” into their products for surveillance.

The House rejected Massie’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 198 to 222 (Roll Call 321). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Massie’s amendment seeks to uphold the Constitution and its protection of privacy rights.

During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) introduced an amendment to bar the use of funds in the bill to carry out certain green-energy mandates that, McClintock said on the House floor, have forced the military “to squander billions of dollars.” Citing examples, McClintock noted: “These mandates have cost the Navy as much as $150 per gallon for jet fuel.... [They] forced the Air Force to pay $59 per gallon for 11,000 gallons of biofuel in 2012 — 10 times more than regular jet fuel cost.” Also, “At Naval Station Norfolk, the Navy spent $21 million to install a 10-acre solar array, which will supply a grand total of 2 percent of the base’s electricity … [and] pay for itself in only 447 years. Too bad solar panels only last 25 years.”

The House passed McClintock’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 221 to 197 (Roll Call 322). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the so-called green-energy mandates squander military resources and undermine the purpose of having a military, which is to defend the United States and win our wars.

During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to provide aid to Pakistan, a supposed U.S. ally in the “war on terror.” Rohrabacher noted on the House floor: “Since 9/11, we have given Pakistan well over $30 billion, the majority of which goes to military and security services of Pakistan. And Pakistan has used those services to murder and oppress their people.... It is a grotesque charade for us to suggest that our aid is buying Pakistani cooperation in the war on radical Islamic terrorism or in anything else.”

The House rejected Rohrabacher’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 84 to 336 (Roll Call 325). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because U.S. foreign aid is unconstitutional, and aid sent to Pakistan has undermined rather than helped the cause of freedom.

During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the Syria Train and Equip Program. Through this program, the U.S. government has armed so-called moderate jihadists who are not fighting for freedom but for an Islamic State under Sharia law, not just in Syria but beyond — the same goal as ISIS. In her House speech advocating her amendment, Gabbard warned that “overthrowing Assad … would strengthen groups like ISIS and al Qaeda, allowing them to take over all of Syria, creating an even worse humanity crisis and an even greater threat to the world.”

The House rejected Gabbard’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 135 to 283 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because U.S. foreign aid is unconstitutional, and arming so-called moderate jihadists to fight Assad is both counterproductive and tantamount to going to war in Syria.

During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”

This bill (H.R. 5471) would authorize the Homeland Security Department to train state and local law enforcement in methods for countering violent extremism and terrorism. This training would take place at fusion centers that have been established across the nation by the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Department of Justice for promoting information sharing between agencies such as the CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. military, and state- and local-level governments. It also would require the department to incorporate testimonials of former extremists and their friends and families into its efforts to combat terrorist recruitment and communications.

The House passed H.R. 5471 on June 16 , 2016 by a vote of 402 to 15 (Roll Call 333). We have assigned pluses to the nays because providing federal training to state and local law-enforcement programs is not only unconstitutional, but also further federalizes the police system.

This bill (H.R.4775) would delay implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone from 2017 to 2025. The new ozone standard, which was promulgated in 2015, would lower allowable ozone levels from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. The day of the vote, the National Association of Manufacturers stated that by lowering the standard “at a time when states and manufacturers are still trying to meet the existing requirements, the administration added another layer of red tape that will hold back job creation.”

The House passed H.R. 4775 on June 8, 2016 by a vote of 234 to 177 (Roll Call 282). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government possesses no constitutional authority to set emission standards, ozone levels have been dropping anyway, and Americans need jobs.

During consideration of the Energy-Water appropriations bill (H.R. 5055), Representative Ken Buck (R-Colo.) introduced an amendment that would eliminate funding for Energy Department energy efficiency and renewable energy activities, nuclear energy activities, and fossil energy research and development.The $3.5 billion in savings that would result from such cuts would be transferred to a spending reduction account.

The House rejected Buck’s amendment on May 25, 2016 by a vote of 80 to 339 (Roll Call 244). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing energy production (which is unconstitutional), let alone picking “winners and losers” in the marketplace by propping up favored companies with grants and research money while others do not receive such help.

During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative John Fleming (R-La.) introduced an amendment that would prohibit the use of funds for President Obama’s executive orders that require the Defense Department to meet “green” energy mandates and incorporate climate-change reviews in operations, acquisitions, and planning.Fleming noted in a statement the day after his amendment was voted on that the orders “require EPA bureaucrats and other political appointees to direct our military commanders on how to run their installations and to purchase inefficient and expensive ‘green’ technologies. This is despite readily available and often less expensive conventional fuels. Purchasing heavily subsidized Chevy Volts and prohibitive solar panels to satisfy the President’s climate change agenda represents the choice not to provide our soldiers with needed training and equipment.”

The House adopted Fleming’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 227 to 198 (Roll Call 209). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Obama’s “green” and climate-change mandates for the military harm the U.S. military’s readiness to defend the United States.

During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”

This bill (H.R. 2666) would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from regulating the rates Internet service providers charge their customers for broadband Internet service access. By regulating broadband rates, the FCC would not only be regulating the cost of accessing the Internet but would also be discouraging service providers, which would no longer be able to set their own
prices, from investing in the Internet market.Bill sponsor Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) explained regarding his bill, “All we’re doing is taking back a little bit of power from the FCC and saying, look, let’s keep the Internet free-market.”

The House passed H.R. 2666 on April 15, 2016 by a vote of 241 to 173 (Roll Call 152). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Internet sector, like the broader economy, should be a free market, and the federal government has no constitutional authority to intrude

This bill (H.R. 1567) would require the president to coordinate development and implementation of a global food security strategy, and would authorize approximately $1 billion for fiscal 2017 to implement portions of the strategy that relate to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The House passed H.R. 1567 on April 12, 2016 by a vote of 370 to 33 (Roll Call 139). We have assigned pluses to the nays because feeding the world is not a proper responsibility of the U.S. government. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any authorization for the federal government to feed the American people, let alone citizens of other countries. Furthermore, offering “aid” to impoverished countries is often a means to prop up dictators who will bend to the will of the wealthy country in exchange for money. Such corrupt rulers have little regard for the welfare of their people, so the “aid” rarely finds its way to the people who need it most.

This measure (House Resolution 639) would authorize the speaker of the house to appear as an amicus curiae (aka “friend of the court”) in the case of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., “and to file a brief in support of the position that the [Obama administration has] acted in a manner that is not consistent with [its] duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” This case was brought by 26 states against the Obama administration for its November 2014 executive actions that would defer deportation and provide work permits for illegal immigrants. Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas) explained the essence of the case in a speech in the House of Representatives on March 17, 2016: “This unprecedented, unilateral action by the executive branch was a nullification of immigration law of the United States. And it was not done by Congress. It was done by administrative edict that came from the White House….So what value is the law or the Constitution if the executive, who is supposed to enforce the law — not make it, as we all learned in ninth grade civics — sends out a memo saying it will no longer enforce the law?”

The House adopted H. Res. 639 on March 17, 2016 by a vote of 234 to 186(Roll Call 129). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because it is constitutionally exemplary for the House of Representatives to take legal action to uphold Congress’ sole authority to legislate regarding naturalization and to make the point that the executive branch has the duty to enforce the laws made by Congress.

This bill (H.R.3797) would ease emission requirements imposed on power plants that generate affordable energy from coal-mining refuse.Specifically, H.R. 3797 would provide additional sulfur dioxide emission allocations for refuse coal power plants under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, and it would also provide these plants with alternative means to comply with the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.), said in a news release the day of the vote that this legislation would “allow for the continued viability of coal refuse-to-energy firms” that may not otherwise be able to comply with EPA regulations.

The House passed H.R. 3797 on March 15, 2016 by a vote of 231 to 183 (Roll Call 123). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not only because H.R. 3797 would ease emissions regulations threatening the viability of refuse coal power plants, which benefit the environment by utilizing coal-mining byproduct as an energy source, but also because the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate plant emissions to begin with.

This legislation (H.R. 3762) would repeal significant portions of the 2010 ObamaCare law and eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. According to Representative Tom Cole (R-Okla.) in a speech in the House of Representatives, January 6, 2016, this bill “does [four] important things: it repeals the individual mandate, eliminates the employer mandates, eliminates the taxes on prescription drugs and medical devices, and it places a moratorium on taxpayer funding to abortion providers.”

On February 2, 2016, the House voted 241 to 186 to override President Obama’s veto of this legislation (Roll Call 53). The override attempt failed since a two-thirds majority vote is required to override a veto. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government has no constitutional authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance, to manage the healthcare industry, or to provide funds to organizations that terminate the lives of the preborn.

This legislation (Senate Joint Resolution 22) would provide for congressional disapproval of the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the EPA. Under the proposed rule, former Representative Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) noted, “Federal agencies like the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers would see their regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act drastically expanded, to the point of covering almost any body of water throughout America, from ditches to culverts to pipes to watersheds to farmland ponds.”

The House passed S. J. Res. 22 on January 13, 2016 by a vote of 253 to 166 (Roll Call 45). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because both federal water regulations and the EPA are unconstitutional, and if the rule were to be allowed to go into effect, activities such as farming and real estate development would be greatly hampered, since farmers and developers would be subject to increased unconstitutional permit requirements and fines concerning their treatment of almost any “body of water,” no matter how small.

The omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 2029) would provide $1.15 trillion in “discretionary” appropriations in fiscal 2016 for federal departments and agencies covered by the 12 unfinished fiscal 2016 spending bills. This represents an overall increase in discretionary spending of five percent over 2015 levels.

The omnibus bill would continue funding for President Obama’s 2012 unconstitutional amnesty, which has already granted work permits to around 700,000 illegal aliens, as well as the ability to receive tax credits and federal entitlement programs. It also continues funding for all of President Obama’s refugee programs. Furthermore, the omnibus continues federal funding for Planned Parenthood despite the widespread demand from voters to stop these funds.

The House agreed to the omnibus appropriations bill on December 18, 2015 by a vote of 316 to 113 (Roll Call 705). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this omnibus bill members of Congress are failing to address their fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding annual federal deficits measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, as well as minimizing their accountability to the voters by combining all discretionary federal spending for fiscal 2016 into one gigantic “take it or leave it” bill.

This bill (S. 1177), the Every Student Succeeds Act (first introduced as the Every Child Achieves Act), would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESAA) for four years, through fiscal 2020. The bill would replace the No Child Left Behind Act and continue the requirement for regular standardized testing in core subject areas such as math, reading, and science, with scores for the standardized tests to be separated by categories such as race and income to determine if any “subgroup” is lagging academically. The bill would also require states to develop plans to help low performing public schools.

The House passed S. 1177 on December 2, 2015 by a vote of 359 to 64 (Roll Call 665). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved with education;nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is education listed as one of the government’s enumerated powers. K-12 education, if publicly funded, should be run primarily by parents coordinating with local school districts rather than by a centralized bureaucracy out of Washington, D.C.

This legislation (Senate Joint Resolution 24) would disapprove of and nullify the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule relating to “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources:Electric Utility Generating Units,” published on October 23, 2015. According to Congressional Quarterly, the EPA rule “sets different emissions targets for 49 states based on their existing energy profile and requires each state to reduce emissions by a certain amount by 2030.” Upon passage of the bill by the House of Representatives, Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the original Senate sponsor, said in a statement, “Hardworking families cannot afford these crushing regulations that threaten jobs and affordable energy while doing little to actually improve the environment.”

The House adopted S. J. Res. 24 on December 1, 2015 by a vote of 242 to 180 (Roll Call 650). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government should not hinder existing power plants with regulations that stifle energy production and increase rates, there is no authorization in the Constitution for the federal government to interfere in the energy sector, and CO2 is not a pollutant.

This bill (H.R. 1314) would suspend the national debt limit until March 15, 2017, at which time the ceiling on how much money the federal government is allowed to borrow would be reestablished at the size of the federal debt at that time.The bill would also raise caps intended to limit “discretionary” federal spending by $50 billion for fiscal 2016 and $30 billion for fiscal 2017.

The House agreed to the legislation on October 28, 2015 by a vote of 266 to 167 (Roll Call 579). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government should live within its means, suspending the debt limit is even worse than raising it,and most of the spending responsible for the ballooning national debt is unconstitutional.

This bill (H.R. 597), the Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2015, would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank’s charter through fiscal 2019. Additionally,the bill would reduce the limit on the Ex-Im Bank’s outstanding loans, guarantees,and insurance from $140 billion to $135 billion, as well as prohibit the bank from issuing new loans if the default rate reaches two percent. Under the new charter,the Ex-Im Bank would be required to increase the amount of its financing dedicated to small businesses from 20 to 25 percent,and be subject to a Government Accountability Office audit every four years.

The House passed H.R. 597 on October 27, 2015 by a vote of 313 to 118 (Roll Call 576). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Export-Import Bank is a poster boy for corporate cronyism. The government finances or insures foreign purchases from U.S. companies that commercial banks are unwilling or unable to finance owing to the political or commercial risks inherent in the deals, leaving taxpayers on the hook in the event of default. Constitutionally speaking, the U.S. government should not be underwriting private businesses at taxpayers’ expense, regardless of whether or not such businesses are small,“mom and pop” companies.

This bill (H.R. 3134) would cut off federal funding of Planned Parenthood and its clinics and affiliates for one year, unless they certify that they will not perform abortions, and will not provide money to any entity that performs abortions, during the one-year moratorium. Overall funding would not be reduced, since the funding prohibited to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, would instead be redirected to community health centers that do not perform abortions. The legislation includes exceptions for abortions in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother’s life is endangered.

The House passed H.R. 3134 on September 18, 2015 by a vote of 241 to 187 (Roll Call 505). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government should not, and has no constitutional authority to, subsidize the killing of innocent human life.

This bill(H.R. 427) is entitled the “Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act” and is also known as the REINS Act. It would prohibit the executive branch from putting into effect major rules — rules having an economic impact of at least $100 million per year — until those rules are approved by Congress. The intent of the legislation is to rein in the executive from usurping legislative powers via executive fiat.

The House passed the REINS Act on July 28, 2015 by a vote of 243 to 165 (Roll Call 482). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because all legislative powers in the Constitution are vested in Congress, not the executive branch. Mandatory rules issued by the executive branch might not be called laws, but they have the same effect as laws, and what they are called does not change the reality.

During consideration of the Student Success Act(H.R. 5), Representative Lee Zeldin (RN.Y.) introduced an amendment that would allow states to withdraw from the Common Core State Standards or any other specific standards, if they choose, without fear of any direct or indirect penalty from the federal government.

The House adopted Zeldin’s amendment on July 8, 2015 by a vote of 373 to 57 (Roll Call 410). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government has no constitutional authority to interject itself into the education sector,and Common Core is intended to create a national curriculum leading to nationalized education.

H.R. 1190, the Protecting Seniors’ Access to Medicare Act of 2015, would repeal the provisions of ObamaCare providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), otherwise known as the “death panel.” Representative Phil Roe, M.D. (R-Tenn.), who sponsored H.R.1190, described IPAB as “an unelected, unaccountable panel of bureaucrats” and “one of the worst parts of the president’s health care law.” Following passage of the bill, Roe released a statement saying in part, “After practicing medicine for more than 30 years, I can tell you that no two patients are the same; that different approaches are required for different needs. IPAB is blind to this fact — and will ration seniors’ access to care through one-size fits-all payment policies.”

The House passed H.R. 1190 on June 23, 2015 by a vote of 244 to 154 (Roll Call 376). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to interfere in healthcare, let alone ration it by deciding who should and should not receive medical care.

The TPA, introduced as an amendment to an otherwise relatively innocuous bill about public safety employment withdrawals, would renew the on-again-off-again “fast track authority”that Congress has often awarded to the president over the past several decades.The essential features of TPA are: (1) Congress unconstitutionally delegates its constitutional authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” to the executive branch; and (2) Congress dramatically increases the probability of its approval of foreign trade agreements negotiated by the executive branch by restricting itself to voting up or down by simple majority on the agreements, with no ability to amend the agreements and with no possibility of filibusters in the Senate.So-called free-trade agreements that are negotiated under “fast track authority,” such as the already-existing North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), have in common a structure and purpose to create supranational political entities that would supersede the national independence of the United States. Genuine free trade would mean the absence of government involvement, but these agreements entail more than just trade and put the United States on a trajectory to regional governance similar to Europe’s trajectory from the Common Market to the EU.

The House passed TPA on June 18,2015 by a vote of 218 to 208 (Roll Call374). We have assigned pluses to the nays because TPA would facilitate the subordination of the national independence of the United States to regional blocs of nations in a process that is leading toward a world government.

Trade Promotion Authority.
The House held separate roll call votes on the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) sections of H.R. 1314. The TPA portion of the bill would renew the on-again-offagain "fast track authority" that Congress has often awarded to the president over the past several decades. The essential features of TPA are: (1) Congress unconstitutionally delegates its constitutional authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" to the Executive Branch; and (2) Congress dramatically increases the probability of approval of foreign trade agreements by restricting itself to voting up or down by simple majority on the agreements, as negotiated and submitted by the president, with no ability to amend the agreements and with no possibility of filibusters in the Senate.

So-called free-trade agreements that have already been passed under previously awarded "fast track authority," such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the currently proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), have in common a structure and purpose that would create supranational political entities that would supersede the national independence of the United States. Genuine free trade would mean the absence of government involvement, but these agreements entail more than just trade and put the United States on a trajectory to regional governance similar to Europe's trajectory from a Common Market to the EU.

The House agreed to the TPA section of H.R. 1314 on June 12, 2015 by a vote of 219 to 211 (Roll Call 362). We have assigned pluses to the nays because TPA would facilitate the subordination of the national independence of the United States to regional trading blocs.

Country of Origin Labeling.
The proposed Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 (H.R. 2393) would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal the requirements of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for beef, chicken, and pork sold in the United States. This vote came after the World Trade Organization's recent ruling against an appeal from the United States to keep its COOL. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) opposed passage of the bill to repeal COOL. From the House floor, Massie elaborated: "What is the World Trade Organization, and who are they to tell Congress what laws we have to pass? These judges weren't appointed by the President. They weren't confirmed by the Senate. These are not judges from our Constitution. These are extra-constitutional judges, yet they are telling us here in Congress you have got to do this or there will be repercussions."

The House passed H.R. 2393 on June 10, 2015 by a vote of 300 to 131 (Roll Call 333). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill would cede national sovereignty over food-related choices and regulations to the WTO. Moreover, this bill would prevent American consumers from knowing where their food comes from.

EPA Waters Regulations.
H.R. 1732 would order the secretary of the Army and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw the notice of a proposed rule published in the Federal Register entitled "Definition of ‘Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act" (April 21, 2014).

This legislation was introduced because of the EPA's sustained attempt to grab regulatory authority over virtually all surface water and groundwater throughout the United States ever since the Clean Water Act gave the EPA authority in 1972 to regulate "waters of the United States," defined as "navigable waters." Although the EPA has almost comically stretched the definition of "navigable waters" to include puddles, vernal pools, ditches, seasonal streams, and isolated ponds, this unconstitutional federal agency's power grab over "waters of the United States" has been repeatedly slapped down by the Supreme Court.

The House passed H.R. 1732 on May 12, 2015 by a vote of 261 to 155 (Roll Call 219). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the constitutionally dubious premise of federal regulation of "navigable waters" on the basis of the interstate commerce clause should not encompass puddles, ditches, seasonal streams, and isolated ponds on private lands.

Cyberspace Intelligence Sharing.
The proposed National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act (NCPA) of 2015 (H.R. 1731) would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to expand the role of the Department of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity and Communication Integration Center, designating it the principal federal entity to receive and disseminate information about cyberspace threats from and to private companies and other federal agencies.

The House passed H.R. 1731 on April 23, 2015 by a vote of 355 to 63 (Roll Call 173). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill would further empower the unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security, erode the privacy protections enshrined in the Constitution, and gradually move the United States closer to becoming a police state.

Estate Tax Repeal.
H.R. 1105, the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015, would amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the estate tax.

The House passed H.R. 1105 on April 16, 2015 by a vote of 240 to 179 (Roll Call 161). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the estate tax discourages upward mobility in America's middle class by making it prohibitively expensive to pass on a family business or farm to one's descendants. Even though proponents of the estate tax claim that its repeal would only benefit the super-rich at the expense of everyone else, the wealthy are often not adversely affected by the estate tax and can usually avoid it via accounting strategies and funneling money into tax-free foundations. In fact, in 2001 over 120 of America's wealthiest urged Congress not to repeal the estate tax.

As Representative Roger Williams (R-Texas) noted during debate on the bill, "The death tax is a tax on savings that have already been taxed on before.... Many second-generation business owners do not have the means to hire teams of accountants and lawyers to navigate the costly obstacles to save the family farm and save the family business.... As a small-business owner of 44 years, I have seen friends and colleagues lose gains earned from a lifetime of hard work because of Washington's greed and failed policies, like the death tax."

Ukraine Military Aid.
House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia.

The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities.

Amtrak Reauthorization.
The proposed Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 (H.R. 749) would authorize $7.2 billion for Amtrak funding over the next four years, through 2019. Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), who opposed the reauthorization of federal funds to Amtrak, noted: "We will shell out $45 every time a passenger steps aboard an Amtrak train. That is $45 per passenger per trip and directly billed to taxpayers, up from $32 from six years ago. Despite endless promises, things aren't getting better."

The House passed H.R. 749 on March 4, 2015 by a vote of 316 to 101 (Roll Call 112). We have assigned pluses to the nays because spending billions of tax dollars for Amtrak transportation is unconstitutional, and the spending has no chance of boosting the prospects of Amtrak to make it self-sufficient.

ObamaCare Repeal.
H.R. 596 would repeal ObamaCare (Public Laws 111-148 and 111-152). Unfortunately, this bill also recommends the introduction of replacement legislation by providing specific instructions to House committees to submit replacement legislation based on a laundry list of 12 provisions briefly described in the bill, such as "foster[ing] economic growth and private sector job creation by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations," and "provid[ing] people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage." However, this bill does provide a clean repeal of the entire ObamaCare law and, in addition, requires only that several House committees propose replacement legislation.

The House passed H.R. 596 on February 3, 2015 by a vote of 239 to 186 (Roll Call 58). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government has no constitutional authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance or to manage the healthcare industry.

Banning Federal Funding of Abortions.
The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015" (H.R. 7) would prohibit the expenditure of federal funds "for any abortion" or "for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion." The funding prohibition would not apply to abortions in cases of rape or incest or if the life of the mother is endangered.

The House passed H.R. 7 on January 22, 2015 by a vote of 242 to 179 (Roll Call 45). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not only because the government should not be subsidizing the killing of innocent human life, but also because there is no constitutional authority for the government to manage or finance the healthcare sector.

Executive Action on Immigration.
During consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 240), Representative Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) introduced an amendment that would prohibit the use of funds for carrying out President Obama's unconstitutional executive actions on illegal immigration. The amendment would defund the Obama administration executive actions announced on November 20, 2014, which would, as described by Aderholt, "grant deferred action to an estimated 4 million people in the country illegally and unlawfully."

The House adopted Aderholt's amendment on January 14, 2015 by a vote of 237 to 190 (Roll Call 29). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the president is not a "king" or "dictator" who may make his own law. Under the U.S. Constitution, "all legislative powers herein granted" are delegated to Congress, and it is the responsibility of the president to faithfully execute the law.